7/27/2006

This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent Insta-linked post.

Why this post? Because it ties it all together in a way that I haven’t seen before. And it’s another chance to see the WuzzaDem puppets again.

Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.

As I noted the other day, Greenwald shared an IP address with sock puppets named “Ryan” (posting at Riehl World View), “Ellison” (posting at Ace of Spades), and “Thomas Ellers” (posting at Q&O).

Greenwald shared a second IP address with a sock puppet named “Wilson” (posting at Protein Wisdom).

No actual people have come forward claiming to be Ellers, or Ellensburg, or Ellison, or Ryan, or Wilson. And in addition to IP address evidence, other factors point to the sock-puppets being Greenwald. Remember that the reason I checked the IP addresses to begin with is because someone (Ace’s commenter Shawn) saw similarities between the style and content of the sock-puppet comments and Greenwald’s style and content.

A thorough examination of the sock-puppet comments, which I perform below, shows that the sock-puppeteer is either Greenwald, or a person who is his carbon copy in personality, writing style and verbal tics. His English is every bit as competent as Greenwald’s own comment prose. The commenter is fully conversant with idiomatic expressions, including some that are specific to the blog-world.

Also, the commenter is quite Greenwald-like in his obsessive interest in (and encyclopedic knowledge of) Greenwald. He has a truly astounding knowledge of Greenwald’s posts, Greenwald’s updates, and Greenwald’s enemies. He knows all about Greenwald’s commenters — including which ones like Greenwald and which don’t, and which ones used to, but suddenly changed their minds.

Sounds kinda like me!

Under assumed names, the obsessive Greenwald fan simply helicopters into a comment thread. He defends Greenwald under an assumed name, and then helicopters out. Some of the names used by the commenter never appear on the Internet again.

Although Greenwald often comes on to comment threads to defend himself under his own name, Greenwald and his sock-puppets don’t seem to show up in the same threads. Apparently, when a same-IP commenter shows up to defend Greenwald, Greenwald himself doesn’t feel the need to defend himself in the same threads. The fact that people support him in those comment threads isn’t enough to keep him from commenting; only the excellent defense provided by the sock puppets is sufficient to keep Greenwald from participating. (Indeed, Greenwald and his sock-puppets have almost never appeared on the same blog — almost as if they thought that the IP addresses couldn’t be cross-checked if they posted on different blogs.)

Furthermore, as Ace has shown, it has happened that a suspected sock-puppet says things in comments one day, and these observations show up in Greenwald’s posts the next day.

Uh-oh. Did I really do that?

Finally, the sock-puppet commenter has been quite protective of Greenwald’s reputation, following critics from thread to thread to defend the good name of Glenn Greenwald. Yet, if we are to assume that he is a different person from Greenwald, such as Greenwald’s boyfriend, he has all of a sudden chosen to let Greenwald twist in the wind. The boyfriend, formerly so concerned with Greenwald’s reputation, is now leaving thousands believing Greenwald guilty of some silly sock-puppetry. Where is the sock-puppet’s regard for Greenwald’s reputation now?

Let’s get to the details, starting with the confirmed IP address matches.

IP address 201.37.43.117

The posts from IP address 201.37.43.117 began on July 13. Blogger Ace of Spades wrote a post about Glenn Greenwald, and his commenters were chiming in. WuzzaDem provides the visuals:

What’s up, homesock?

How’s it hangin’?

Hey, did you hear what Glenn Greenwald…

At 6:14 a.m. Pacific time (10:14 a.m. Brazil time), someone named Ellison (a name similar to suspected sock-puppets “Rick Ellensburg” and “Thomas Ellers”) left a comment on Ace’s site, in this thread. (Ace’s timestamps are on Central time; all times are Daylight Savings Time.) The comment read as follows:

Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.

Why would anyone think what he has to say matters? It’s not like anyone listens to him. It’s not like he’s Ace, or Jeff Goldstein, or Patterico, or Sister Toldjah or Glenn Reynolds, or someone who really matters.

Great advice, you super-important bloggers should only to each other and about each other. Don’t bother with anyone in the Left because if you ignore them, they’ll just go away.

Translation:

Jealous, much?

The comment left by Ellison hits what I like to call the Four Pillars of Greenwald’s Greatness: 1) bestselling book; 2) 9-month rise to Internet mega-success; 3) Senators read from his blog; and 4) newspapers print front-page stories based on his blog. Remember the Four Pillars; you’ll see them again. Here is how John from WuzzaDem sums them up:

That’s right. I’ve written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on my blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog during the Censure hearings.

Well, John got only three of the four. But John isn’t Glenn Greenwald. I bet Glenn Greenwald knows all Four Pillars of his own Greatness by heart. It is quite possible that, as he drifts off to sleep every night, he recites each of the Four Pillars in his head.

But it wouldn’t do for Greenwald to go around talking about the Four Pillars using his own name. It smacks too much of excessive self-adulation, which turns people off:

Don’t you think it’s a little unseemly to be bragging about yourself?

Greenwald is a smart guy, and he probably knows this. It’s much better to have “Ellison” say it:

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog…

Yeah, that sounds a lot better.

D’OH! Except for the “my” part!

Don’t you mean his blog?

Let’s fix that:

Right, right – Russ Feingold read from his blog during the Censure hearings.

Much, much better.

This “Ellison” character knew the names of many of Greenwald’s blogger critics at that particular point in time: Ace. Jeff Goldstein. Patterico. Sister Toldjah. Glenn Reynolds. He rattled them off with an amazing familiarity. [UPDATE 7-27-06 5:33 p.m.: Ace writes to note that all these people were specifically mentioned at the end of his post, so this point is not particularly compelling.]

All of these bloggers had recently published posts about Greenwald, and “Ellison” was familiar with them all. Evidently, Ellison was savvy about the Internet, knew who Greenwald’s critics were, knew how to get to their sites, and remembered all of their names as he constructed a blog comment.

Note that, while Greenwald often shows up in blog comments that criticize him, he didn’t show up in Ace’s comments. It is somewhat uncharacteristic of Greenwald not to show up in the comments of a post by a major blogger that criticizes him.

Hey! Are you criticizing me?!?!

And Ace’s post is brutal. It calls Greenwald “foaming and insipid,” and suggests that he is a no-name:

Not even Glenn Greenwald knows who the fuck who Glenn Greenwald is. The other day, he was buying some batteries at Radio Shack, and, per their procedures, they asked him his name. “I have no idea who I am,” he’s reported to have said.

That must have upset Greenwald, who (as we will soon see) read Ace’s post and the comments to it. After all, none of the Four Pillars of Greenwald’s Greatness apply to Ace! Greenwald had to have wanted to point this out. Yet, as Ace explains in his classic ironic fashion: “Like an e-Gandhi, [Greenwald] refused [to] respond to my verbal violence in any manner whatsoever.”

I like to remain above the fray, you dishonest hypocrite.

It is Greenwald’s great fortune that “Ellison” was able to do this for him. Unfortunately, he did it from Greenwald’s own IP address.

Remember this, because it’s a common theme: when the sock-puppets appear in a thread about Greenwald, Greenwald does not appear.

Seventeen minutes after Ellison’s comment at Ace’s site, Greenwald left this comment on my site under his own name. This comment used the same IP address as the Ellison comment. The comment was left at 6:31 a.m. Pacific time. In the comment, the famously civil Greenwald made a false accusation about my supposedly removing comments from my site (I didn’t), called me a “liar,” and called my comments obsessive, hypocritical, hysterical, petulant, and shrieking.

Good DAY, sir!

Greenwald then spammed the same comment to four other threads involving him, to make sure everyone coming to my blog to read about him would see it. The comments were left at 6:39 a.m., 6:40 a.m., 6:41 a.m., and again at 6:41 a.m.. Later, at 7:19 a.m., he left another comment on the first thread, again calling me a liar.

Good DAY, sir!

The spamming of the same comment on five different threads of mine shows something significant about Glenn Greenwald: he is obsessive about defending his reputation, even in blog comments.

That’s no big deal. A lot of bloggers are the same way, including me — and plenty of other bloggers I could name. I bet a few names are already popping into your head as I say this. You know who we are. If you criticize us on your blog, more likely than not we’ll pop up to defend ourselves.

It’s a personality trait. And Greenwald himself has that personality trait in spades. Say anything bad about him, and BOOM! there he is.

That is such a lie. You right-wingers are such dishonest hypocrites.

Hey, now that I think of it, he looks kind of like…

Back to the timeline:

Later that same day, Greenwald left two comments under his own name at this Villainous Company thread, at 11:13 a.m. Pacific (2:13 a.m. Eastern), and 12:15 p.m. Pacific (3:15 p.m. Eastern). (Villainous Company’s timestamps are on Eastern time.). In those comments, Greenwald gave himself a little pat on the back for his extraordinary civility, and criticized Cassandra for suggesting (in the aforementioned Ace of Spades thread) that he was a “whack job.”

This is how we know that he not only read the Ace of Spades post, which was brutal in its derision of Greenwald, but all the comments to Ace’s post as well. He actually talked to Cassandra about it that day. Yet, as noted above, Greenwald did not respond to Ace, leaving those duties to “Ellison.”

Four days later, on July 17, someone using the same IP address used it to leave three comments under the name “Ryan” on Dan Riehl’s blog.

I guess it’s up to me to set you straight about Glenn Green…

The first comment was on July 17, at 1:31 a.m. Pacific (Dan’s timestamps are on Eastern time):

What’s happening here is obvious. Instapundit is so full of frustration and anger towards Greenwald’s criticisms that he links to every loser and sicko who writes a single negative thing about Greenwald, no matter how extreme, deranged, bitter, etc.

So now they’re all trained that if they want attention and traffic from their master, they need to be good little attack poodles and write about Greenwald – the more personal and inane, the better. Insty has linked to 10 posts like this, at least, in the last week.

Dan needs attention and traffic – he doesn’t exactly have a lot of either – and this is the only way he can get it. Greenwald is his meal ticket.

I don’t even know why I’m talking to you – you’re not published. You all rely on me for traffic. Good DAY, sir.

Ryan, like all of the suspected sock-puppets, speaks colloquial English, like Greenwald. He sets off phrases with hyphens, just like Greenwald. He calls Instapundit “Insty” — a strange phrase for a Brazilian. He knows how many posts Instapundit has posted about Greenwald in the previous week. He also uses the terms “sicko” and “attack poodles.” The phrase “attack poodles” — an invention of James Wolcott — is a favorite of the American left in general, and of lefty bloggers in particular. It is far more likely to be used by a devoted blogger and blog reader than by someone who isn’t.

Again, these comments are something that Greenwald may well be thinking — but it wouldn’t do for them to be posted over his name. So they were posted from a different name — from Greenwald’s IP address.

The second “Ryan” comment was left on the same day, at 6:42 a.m. Pacific. It mocked Xrlq’s takedown of Greenwald, as well as Xrlq’s 200-visitor-a-day traffic. As evidence of the alleged weakness of Xrlq’s takedown, the comment cited a leftist satire web site that features a writer named “Retardo Montalban.” The “Retardo” web site is a Greenwald favorite which he had linked frequently in recent weeks, pointing specifically to a “Retardo” post about Jeff Goldstein as evidence of Goldstein’s allegedly violent rhetoric.

I do like that “Retardo” guy.

Coincidentally, so do I!

The next day, July 18, “Ryan” left a third comment, at 7:24 a.m. Pacific. This one is my favorite of all the sock-puppet comments. It responded to allegations regarding Greenwald’s career — something that “Ryan” at Greenwald’s IP address pretended not to know about. So “Ryan” used the device of “e-mailing” Greenwald, who “responded” in an e-mail that Ryan could then print:

I e-mailed Greenwald yesterday about this, pasted BumperStickerist’s accusations, and asked Greenwald if it was true. This is what I just received in response:

“Thanks for sending that.

I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.

Anyone who says that I did not practice law there after I passed the bar is lying — and deliberately so, I would think, since nobody who says such a thing could possibly have any basis for knowing that.

In any event, I can’t imagine what point anyone thinks they’re making. Wachtell is known to be the most selective law firm in the country. What point do they think they’re making, exactly?”

You people are morons, seriously. You run around claiming things without having any idea if there true. And then when you get exposed as liars, you slink away and repeat the next lie.

WuzzaDem explains it this way:

Well, I’ve never met the man personally, but I did recently e-mail him, and this is the reply I received:

Dear person I’ve never met personally: Thanks for your note. As a matter of fact I did write a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, and I am indeed the person who broke a story on his blog about wiretapping that led…

Yeah, yeah, we get the idea. Listen, why don’t you just quit while you’re ahead. You’re really making an ass out of yourself.

Ryan, remember, posted from Greenwald’s IP address. To get the information he needed, he didn’t need to e-mail Greenwald. All he probably had to do was shout across the room to Greenwald — probably to a mirror.

Right about the same time, the same IP address was used numerous times by a Thomas Ellers in comments to this Q&O post.

Did someone mention Glenn Greenwald?

(Note that the name “Thomas Ellers” is similar to “Ellison” and “Rick Ellensburg.”) The Q&O post is from July 17; we don’t know exactly when the comments were left, and certain of the Q&O people have conspicuously refused to provide that information. There are no permalinks to the Ellers comments, but here they are:

I love how Franks claims not to know who Greenwald is and never reads his blog – “I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is” — but somehow also claims to knows that he’s just a “lefty-boy” who only writes “pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party’s web site.” Wouldn’t you have to know who he is and read him to know that?

I love how you’re so dishonest and hypocritical!

As we will see below, beginning the comment with the phrase “I love how . . .” is a “tell.” That’s how Rick Ellensburg began his comment at Right Wing Nuthouse: “I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.” This is a phrase that Greenwald himself uses in a comment at Wizbang on July 4: “I love how Lorie Byrd thinks she knows more about the security concerns of Rumsfeld and Cheney than the Secret Service and Rumsfeld himself know.”

More Ellers from Q&O:

David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego (“I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!”). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.

Which brings up an interesting point: isn’t a lot of this hatred of Greenwald jealousy-based.

Jealous, much?

“Ellers” has an encyclopedic knowledge of Greenwald’s site, including Greenwald’s arguments, his commenters, and the content of his posts and updates. Evidently, “Ellers” has read Greenwald’s blog so religiously that he knows when “David S.” was a Greenwald fan — and when he turned against Greenwald, and why.

It’s the weirdest thing; Ellers has an amazing familiarity with Greenwald’s blog and with David S.’s history as a commenter . . . yet if Ellers ever commented on Greenwald’s blog, I can’t find any evidence of it. I assume that if any of his defenders can, they’ll let me know.

The comment continues:

The Bestselling book, all the media attention, the overnight blog success, etc?

Do I really have to recite all Four Pillars?

The comment continues:

I’d be the first to say his style can be bombastic and he can be overly aggressive. But nobody denies that he’s very smart, and among liberal bloggers at least, very moderate and rational in his view, and unusually willing to engage debate. So it’s hard to figure out what there could be about the guy that generates such strong emotions.

Here Franks want to pop up out of the blue and announce that he doesn’t care about Greenwald, and does so by creating yet another post with his name in the title and then calls him a series of names. Not exactly the sign of someone who doesn’t care about Greenwald. So what’s really going on here?

Are you obsessed with me??

Recall, by the way, that Ellers’s theory — that any criticism of Greenwald is based on jealousy — is a theme we saw in comments from “Ryan” using the same IP address. This is not the first time this theory will emerge, and it won’t be the last.

Q&O commenters try to take on Ellers:

You are aware that Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive…

I am a great admirer of Glenn Greenwald. I think he is constructively trying to direct the power of the internet into public affairs and politics. Further, having just endured the Sunday talk shows, I am affirmed in my opinion that the quality of debate is significantly higher in this blog than that offered by the TV news outfits. Putting those two things together, I think Glenn has embarked on a worthy undertaking in trying to enlist grass-roots internet support to impact politics and political changes.

You can find my comments at Glenn Greenwald’s blog, Unclaimed Territory. Mr. Greenwald, in my opinion, runs the most respectful, thoughtful, and intelligent politico-legal blog in the whole dang blogosphere.

I will add this. I believe that blogs like Mr. Greenwald’s demonstrate the awesome democratic potential of the internet. Such innovations are how we, as a united people, can proceed.

But today:

I could not care less what Glenn Greenwald thinks or says.

Tell me there isn’t something going on here on an emotional level in terms of the response to Greenwald.

I’m get — I mean, Mr. Greenwald is getting to you! You can’t respond to the substance!

and this:

Oh, as for Greenwald’s “best-seller,” (self-decribed as such on his website, just above the review by the high-school girl in the Mercury News) well here’s a free tip for you, Mr. Ellers: Don’t believe everything you read.

Can you elaborate on this accusation? I’ve clicked over to the links I’ve seen on his site and saw the book, right there, on the Times Best seller list on several different weeks. Are those pages fabricated? Has his book not really been on the Times’ Best Seller list like he claims, or at #1 on Amazon? If so, this is a big story, so I’m interested in your support for this accusation.

I do too have . . . I mean, Mr. Greenwald does too have a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority!

Let’s move on to the next IP address — because Greenwald and the sock-puppets share two of them.

IP address 201.17.101.161

Kevin at Wizbang has confirmed for me that Greenwald used IP address 201.17.101.161 to leave a comment at Wizbang on July 4, here, that begins: “I love how Lorie Byrd thinks she knows more about the security concerns of Rumsfeld and Cheney than the Secret Service and Rumsfeld himself know.” As we already saw, the “I love how” language is characteristic of suspected sock-puppet Thomas Ellers. As we will see, it is also characteristic of suspected sock-puppet Rick Ellensburg.

On July 8, Greenwald posted at Confederate Yankee under his own name, in this thread, using the same IP address. As the civil Mr. Greenwald is wont to do when he wanders onto conservatives’ blogs, he called Confederate Yankee a hypocrite: “It’s difficult to put into words what a hypocrite Confederate Yankee is.”

I’ll give it a shot: you, sir, are a HYPOCRITE.

The same IP address was in evidence on July 12, when Greenwald left three comments on my site under that IP address. The first was left at 5:01 a.m. Pacific. This was the comment in which he told the following lie about me: “You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irrlevancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.”

Good DAY, sir!

Greenwald left two more comments on my site using this IP address on July 12: this one at 5:10 a.m. Pacific time, and this one at 6:54 a.m.

(h/t Pablo.) It’s a good name for someone who’s talking to himself. Anyway, on Jeff Goldstein’s site, using the same IP address as the above comments by Greenwald, “Wilson” said:

What I don’t quite understand is, why do so many, almost all on the extreme Left, consider Greenwald some kind of great constitutional authority.

Lets see, a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority. Breaks a story on his blog about wiretapping that leads to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. Russ Feingold reads from his blog during the Censure hearings.

Maybe that has something to do with why. Any conservative bloggers with credentials like that? All compiled in 9 months or however long its been since he started blogging?

Jeffy’s funny poems are great and everything, and im sure your anonymous lawyer friends are really smart and all, but hard to say they compare to those things.

In other words . . .

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Ti —

No, wait — wrong puppet . . .

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my, uh, his blog…

There are the Four Pillars emphasized by Ellison and (as to three of the four) Ryan above, under another IP address shared with Greenwald: the best-selling book, the front-page articles, Senators reading from the blog, and the meteoric rise of the blog in 9 months.

By the way, “Jeffy” seems like odd terminology to use for someone unfamiliar with Goldstein’s blog. Of course, Greenwald is very familiar with Goldstein, having engaged in numerous debates with him previously.

I’m sure I don’t know who you’re talking about. None of the other puppets have these ultra-cool Groucho glasses.

Oh, brother.

The name “Rick Ellensburg” is, of course, similar to “Thomas Ellers” and “Ellison.” And the writing style and content is remarkably similar to that of Greenwald. Let’s look at one of Ellensburg comments in this post:

I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.

I also love how you criticize it for not having enough examples and then ignore most of the examples Greenwald gives.

I love how much I sound like Glenn Greenwald!

Ellensburg’s comment continues:

The article about Barr makes clear that the whole room hated Barr for criticizing Bush, not just one imbecile.

And if you’re not familiar with the way in which even life-long conservative Senators are no longer conservative when they jump out of line, it’s only because you don’t read the papers. Should he have included every instance of that in his single post?

And you need to learn to read. Greenwald said that Goldstein and Goldberg would likely support far more extreme measures than the ones already revealed, but that they would likely NOT be without limits at all as to the powers they’d be willing to give Bush (unlike Malkina and Hinderaker). You mock that statement as some sort of contradiction. Do you really not understand the difference between advocating further powers but not advocating absolute powers? Apparently not.

And they just had a conservative event and the whole place erupted in cheers when Ann Coulter urged violence on ragheads and called for the deaths of liberal supreme court justices and bill clinton. Is that conservative to you or a cult?

And he said it’s not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in the federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush – FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government?

And Bush wants gov’t in every aspect of our lives – Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states. This is all in his post; you ignored it.

Ultimately, you’re just oversensitive. He didn’t say all people who support Bush are slaves and cult members. Many are. You acknowledge that yourself in your own post.

Ellensburg is certainly familiar with Greenwald, his blog, and his positions. Yet I can find no evidence that he ever commented on his blog.

Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader — even when the criticism is based on conservative principles — is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause.

In many ways, over this time period, the GOP more closely resembled a cult than a political party, and the cohesiveness of the cult was centered around Personality — a glorification of, and blind reverence for, George W. Bush.

So? It is a cult!

It sure is!

And my goodness, these arguments are certainly rather U.S.-centric for a guy posting from a Brazilian ISP:

And he said it’s not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush – FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government? And Bush wants gov’t in every aspect of our lives – Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states.

Ellensburg, whose name is (like all the sock puppets) very American-sounding (and not very Brazilian-sounding), seems mightily concerned with things that affect the U.S. He knows all about the issues facing the U.S., including Schiavo, gay marriage, etc. Indeed, his call for distrust in government is a view that is largely idiosyncratic to the U.S.

Ellensburg shares some other verbal tics and subject-matter obsessions with Greenwald. Another Ellensburg comment reads:

And one other thing – in his update, he provides an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.

Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it’s fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.

if you’re going to argue Greenwald’s point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending he had none.

To recap: stop PRETENDING that I’m not great!

Ace has shown that Greenwald absolutely adores the “To recap:” construction. Ace pulled six examples from just one month on Greenwald’s blog before Ace got bored with the exercise. In the same post, Ace showed how Ellensburg and Greenwald both love to set off phrases with hyphens.

Well, so do I (with dashes, not hyphens). Each point by itself is not damning — but it becomes so when you look at all these points in their totality.

In Ellensburg’s next comment, he manages to predict Greenwald’s exact arguments for the next day:

Even funnier – looks like Andrew Sullivan agrees with Greenwald, since he took the paragraphs you quoted and called it the “Quote of the Day,” saying Greenwald “diagnosed the situation accurately”:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/quote_for_the_d_20.html

This is pretty good evidence that more than just Brent Bozell has called Sullivan a “liberal” for failing to lick George Bush’s ass enough.

And believe me, dogs know about licking ass!

As Ace has shown in this post, Greenwald’s post the next day cites Sullivan’s praise (go here and scroll to February 13):

Ironically, Sullivan, shortly after Moran posted this, took the precise paragraphs quoted above [Greenwald’s quotes, the ones Moran had attacked] and made them the “Quote of the Day” on his site, concluding that my post “diagnos[es] the situation accurately.”

Many other Ellensburg points end up in Greenwald’s post, including 1) the way that long-time conservatives are no longer considered conservatives if they don’t worship Bush; 2) conservatives don’t seem to be for limited government any more; and 3) the bloggers who criticized his post didn’t respond to his argument that conservatives had changed from “angry opposition to warrant-based FISA eavesdropping” under Clinton to “the stirring defense of warrantless, oversight-less eavesdropping now engaged in proudly by the Bush Administration.”

I didn’t even get a hat tip!

[UPDATE: Ace calls this “PREgurgitation — and it’s a good expression for what is happening here.]

Greenwald cites numerous commenters in the Right Wing Nuthouse thread — but the one commenter who so presciently predicted the content of Greenwald’s post, Rick Ellensburg, didn’t merit as much as a whisper of thanks for his cogent arguments on Greenwald’s behalf.

Because, as Ace says, you tip your hat to other people — not to yourself.

Greenwald’s post the next day is so Ellensburgian, he even uses the “So, to recap” terminology!

Ace has also documented that, despite Ellensburg’s extensive knowledge of Greenwald’s posts and arguments, Ellensburg has appeared on the Internet only once, to defend Greenwald in this one situation.

And, as I said, Ellensburg’s IP address comes from the same address space Greenwald was using just one month before, in numerous comments left in a January Protein Wisdom thread.

Wow. Even I’m convinced. Rick Ellensburg sure does sound a lot like me!

SO, TO RECAP:

What does all of this show?

Greenwald has all but admitted that the sock-puppet comments are coming from his IP address. But he has denied that he made the comments, and insinuates (but does not affirmatively claim) that it is someone else in the household — presumably his boyfriend.

Somehaveargued that it is more likely that Greenwald’s boyfriend posted the sock-puppet comments, and not Greenwald.

He’s right, you know. I read that at Wizbang!

More likely?!?!

I have just demonstrated at great length that the sock-puppet commenter shares several factors with Glenn Greenwald. As Ace says:

Yes, yes, yes, I know… it just so happens that Glenn Greenwald has been blessed to be living with a perfect Spirit Twin who spends all of his day doing what is actually Glenn Greenwald’s job (i.e., defending Glenn Greenwald, recruiting for the cult of Glenn Greenwald), and also seems to do this while Glenn Greenwald is known to be active on the Internet, and is fully committed to, and fully conversant with, all of Glenn Greenwald’s arguments and beliefs, and furthermore does not merely content himself to briefly tout his lover’s accomplishments, but rather argues all of his points in full on his behalf, and furthermore is capable of mimicing his lover’s writing style, with its various gramatical and word-choice tics, at will.

For the sake of amusement, let’s assume this to be true for one moment. Assume that Greenwald’s boyfriend is just as dogged in defending Greenwald as he is. Just as prone to make the same points in idiomatic, blog-centric English. Just as apt to frequent the blogs that criticize Greenwald. Just as familiar with Greenwald’s arguments, posts, updates, and commenters — including facts about when Greenwald’s commenters liked Greenwald, when they stopped, and why. Just as rabid in the utter fanaticism for defending Greenwald that Greenwald feels himself. And just happens to have landed on all the comment threads that Greenwald himself overlooked.

If that’s really true, then the boyfriend’s fetish about protecting Greenwald’s reputation appears to have landed Greenwald in hot water.

Wouldn’t you think the boyfriend would step forward to take the heat?

The boyfriend was fanatically loyal before, spitting out the Four Pillars of Glenn’s Greatness to anyone who would listen, because Glenn’s Reputation Must Be Defended.

Now, Glenn’s reputation is taking as big a hit as it’s probably ever taken — all due to the boyfriend’s actions. Yet the boyfriend, previously so rabidly defensive about Greenwald’s reputation, is now suddenly silent.

Is this believable?

It’s much more reasonable to believe Greenwald was using sock puppets, got caught, and lied about it.

If this boyfriend is so obsessive about protecting his boyfriend Greenwald from personal attacks, why is he letting him twist in the wind now?

Why does this matter — or does it? After all, I’m obviously not objecting to use of pseudonyms by bloggers and blog commenters. How could I be? I mean, you’re reading a post by someone who calls himself “Patterico.” And, while I made the decision to make my real name public long ago (it’s Patrick Frey), many of my commenters use pseudonyms. So what’s the big deal?

Here’s the thing. I am actually a strong defender of people’s right to comment anonymously, or pseudonymously. I myself was semi-pseudonymous for the first several months of this blog. But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.

Speaking of Hiltzik, it’s worth saying a word about motive. Some have argued that there is no reason for Greenwald to resort to sock puppets, since he posts under his own name.

Talk to former blogger Michael Hiltzik. He admitted his sock-puppetry (though he initially denied it, until I posted irrefutable evidence of it). And Hiltzik was not shy about expressing strong opinions under his own name — even quite rude and confrontational ones.

In Greenwald’s case, the motive was even more obvious: there were things he wanted to say that would be unseemly to publish under his own name. So he did it under a different name. Simple as that.

Can you explain it any better, Mr. Greenwald?

To recap:

I love how it’s super-important for bloggers – who are part of the cult of Bush and act like good little attack poodles – to continually ignore these facts, which I learned by e-mailing myself:

Greenwald has a New York Times bestselling book. And he’s broken front-page newspaper stories. And senators read from his blog in Senate hearings. And in just 9 months, he has become a super-blogger.

;D. ROFL. Sockpuppetry is so 1970’s (and it is probably older than that). I’ve seen it on USENET, the old dialup BBS systems (I was a sysop back in the day), heck, I’ve seen it done on real pin up flyers posted on college campus cork boards. Back in the dark ages (Bush 41) TownHall was a BBS. When the Heritage Foundation brought it to Compuserve (before AO…..), a few of the regulars of the TownHall Forum used to drop in on the Democrat Forum to read and occasionally provoke the rather mild invective posted there by today’s standards.

[…] Patterico does a long, well documented expose of one Sergeant Sockpuppet. AKA, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald apparently being a character with serious emotional issues, and an exaggerated sense of his own unimportance. […]

My policy tends to be that, when I’m caught out in something embarrassing, the fastest way to get out from under it is to admit it–even if you were initially a coward and denied it.

Sockpuppetry is juvenile, and silly, and egotistical. That’s all. Ah but lying and denying… consistently, persistently… that’s another matter.

Thing is that people who don’t understand TCP/IP won’t quite grasp this. But honestly, you’ve demonostrated that it is not reasonable to believe that anyone other than Greenwald left these comments. But if any of them did, all they’d have to do is come forward, no?

I think the WuzzaDem sock puppets deserve, if not their own blog, at least a regular column/spot on one (or two, perhaps they could have an ongoing dialogue between WuzzaDem and Patterico). Perhaps the puppet ala Groucho could do a “Secret Word” segment as in “You Bet Your Life”.

Patrick Frey has an incredibly long post, illustrated with actual puppets, dissecting every nook and cranny of the Glenn Greenwald sock puppertry blogstorm.
All I know is that, were I a criminal, I would ply my trade outside his jurisdiction. If he…

[…] Patterico: Annotated WuzzaDem: The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent Insta-linked post. […]

It’s the weirdest thing; Ellers has an amazing familiarity with Greenwald’s blog and with David S.’s history as a commenter . . . yet if Ellers ever commented on Greenwald’s blog, I can’t find any evidence of it.

All but proves the case. Very compelling circumstantial evidence of what’s going on.

I’m not sure that Patterico’s explained his own culpability for the sock puppetry. There was limited puppetry before Pat mocked Greenwald for cross-posting, but it metastatized thereafter. Patterico is guilty of pushing Greenwald into escalated puppetry, much as Israel is guilty for driving Hizbollah into abducting Israeli soldiers. Also, Karl Rove.

You know what would be funny? If you published this as a series of novels and they all became NY Times bestsellers. People like pictures in books man, especially of puppets. Sock puppets wearing disguises? Doubley cool.

Read down to the first photo or two and then had a good time laughing as scrolled through the photos and captions to the end.

I disagree that sock puppets are venial, however. But not sure how mortal it is either. Certainly there are several kinds of sock puppets: the silly ones, on one hand, and the ones intent on deeper mischief, on the other hand (puns, yep).

While I sure enjoyed reading this (and some of your previous very detailed posts on Greenwald and Hiltzik), it sure makes me think that for a guy with a day job and a family, you have got to be one fast typist, going without sleep, or have a boss and wife very supportive of your little hobby. Whichever it is, nice job.

Oh btw…you might want to hide a good portion of this post under specific link, just, it’s a very long post, and if someone has already read it, or tired of the Greenwald item, they can skip over the bulk of it. Just a thought, feel free to delete this comment.

1. Greenwald’s explanation is technically correct if Glenn either dictated his response and the boyfriend typed in the words or if Glenn wrote the response and the boyfriend hit ‘enter’.

You might want to ask the generalized question: Mister Greenwald, did you have any knowledge of or participate in the creation of the comments in question?

2. The Brazillian/English angle might be overplayed a tad. I posted the results of a google search at ace’s which showed a commenter at Greenwald’s who posted in fluent English and also had a portugese blog. That blogger shared the same first name as Glenn’s boyfriend.

The other coincidences you (and ace)use to illustrate the similiarities make it vanishingly unlikely that it’s not Greenwald’s language, if not his actual fingers, hence point 1.

3. If you go back and read the comments thread prior to Ryan emailing Glenn, you’d find that I was no ‘accusing’ Greenwald of anything.

I was trying to reconcile Glenn’s CV which said ‘Wachtell 94-95′ with the fact that Glenn passed the NY bar in 1995, probably in the Summer cycle. As one thing Greenwald’s supporters do is cite to the authority of Glenn’s CV, I thought it useful to look at it and think about it, even if Glenn’s supporters don’t.

At the very least Glenn’s wikipedia entry now gives a more complete description of Greenwald: The Early Days.

Now can someone get to the bottom of how this major-league doofus gamed Amazon. Bonus points if you can find out how many tens of thousands of this mook’s “best-seller” are gathering dust on George Soros’ garage.

How in the world can you people say such things about Glenn Greenwald? How would he possibly have time to make sock puppets? The man is the foremost constitutional lawyer on two continents, wrote the most important book ever, and gets more hits on his fabulous website–in existence only 9 months, 16 days, and two hours, mind you–than all you Chicken Hawks combined!

Feeling inspired this morning – wonder if the wingnuts are up to anything new? All Things Beautiful – Ralph Nader now works for Hezbollah, and the deaths of the U.N. observers are Kofi Annan’s fault because, like, why do they…

Re: #43–just like Onan was careless about where he scattered his seed, Glenn Greenwald and his sock puppets were careless about where they scattered their wisdom–or maybe it was just a strictly solitary “intellectual effort” in Brazil. Key thing was that it was all done by one guy.

When I go into Baby See-Dubya’s room and there’s a funny smell and the covers are wet, and Baby See-Dubya solemnly points a finger at a sodden teddy bear in the corner of the crib, I usually don’t waste time……

[…] Patterico’s Pontifications » Annotated WuzzaDem This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent post. […]

As improbable as it sounds, I’m one of those apparently very rare people who’d never heard of this immensely famous and important chump before the current brouhaha erupted.

And based on what I’ve seen, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to visit his blog. I prefer writers who can … well, write.

So – any word from the Puppet Master himself? Or he just ignoring this in hopes it vanishes?

How truly, deeply embarrassing. The man has shit himself in public and is standing their in a cloud of his own stench … we’re all pointing and laughing at the brown stain … and he’s insisting our eyes are lying?

I feel bad for the chump.

Then again, he’s an excellent cautionary tale for all of us. It sure would have been smarter to just come clean from the start, huh?

Do liberals actually believe him? Really? Or are they just forced to defend him, knowing the truth is a little painful?

Just curious. Not very. Fascinating read, Patterico … even if I don’t know or care about the principals involved.

I commented a while back on Ace’s site that the way Disingenuous Disgrace works is with half-truths. If it is the boyfriend, as he implied, the other half of the truth is that Disingenuous Disgrace was standing over his shoulder telling him what to type.

I love how you’ve managed to overlook the most important piece of evidence in the case: where are the actual socks used in the alleged deception?

If you lack the apparel, your case is in the barrel.

If the feet aren’t bare, not guilty you must declare.

And I also love the fact that you Rethuglicans, when faced with the task of creating sock puppets, made them all white males – why are there no people of color in Rethuglican land (outside of the Bushitler cabinet)?

It has been common knowledge thta Mr Greenwald is homosexual. That being the case, what is the purpose of the sentence:

All of the IP addresses are based in Brazil, where Greenwald spends much of the year with his boyfriend.

Obviously, the sentence would have been relevant if it had read:

All of the IP addresses are based in Brazil, where Greenwald lives for much of the year.

My first impression was that our esteemed host specified that Mr Greenwald was living with his boyfriend as a way of discrediting Mr Greenwald’s arguments. I’m not certain how that would be the case, unless it is assumed that “sock puppetry” is somehow more acceptable among heterosexuals, or that the political positions of homosexuals are of less credibility or logic because they are homosexual.

I’m certain that my first impression was incorrect; I’m just not certain why it is incorrect.

[This is a rather bizarre comment. I am simply setting out the facts. If I didn’t note that Greenwald lives with his boyfriend in Brazil for much of the year, the pro-Greenwald forces would claim I’m hiding that arguably exculpatory fact. — P]

“My first impression was that our esteemed host specified that Mr Greenwald was living with his boyfriend as a way of discrediting Mr Greenwalds arguments.”

Umm… In normal life, I am an out and proud gay man, and I have to say I did not get that impression from Patterico’s words AT ALL.

I think the relevance of “boyfriend” would be that:

(1) Greenwald himself insinuated that the sock puppets were written by someone in his Brazilian household;
(2) Such a person, if they are the true author, would clearly have to be extremely devoted to Mr. Greenwald;
(3) Saying “his girlfriend” would obviously be incorrect, or obviously unnecessarily disrespectful to who Mr. Greenwald is.

So let me get this straight … if I post disparaging remarks that ignore the four pilars about the idjit lying moonbat Glenn Greenwald on my moderately unsuccessful and often ignored blog, The Squiggler, then all kinds of sock puppets and trolls will come and jack up my counter and make me one of the biggies? Hmmmmm.

Gotta Know: The sockpuppet is holding a microphone with one of those boxes for logos/call letters that reporters use. I just saw the puppet in a TV commercial interviewing happy customers. Also, his collar is a wristwatch band.

You, Madame, are a goof, and is typical among liberals when they have no other ground to stand upon, you cry “homophobia.”

In fact, Glenn has proudly announced he has a boyfriend and that he is openly gay. Furthermore, he has said that “someone else within his household” wrote these sock-puppet messages.

The clear insinuation is that it is the Magic Boyfriend, as I have dubbed him, both in honor of the Magic Bullet as well as for the fact that he is magically able to write Glenn Greenwald posts the day BEFORE Glenn Greenwald himself does.

It is the man’s claim that his Magic Boyfriend wrote these posts. It’s not a slur; it’s his stated defense.

In my humble and objective opinion, Patterico is brilliant. Utterly brilliant. In fact, it is unlikely that I will ever read, or hear about other people reading, something as utterly brilliant as this post. By Patterico, who is brilliant. To recap: Patterico is a genius — a super-genius. And anybody who says otherwise is a liar, and a fool, and I pity and despise them. But mostly despise. And I say this as an uninterested third person. Who is inescapably caught in the orbit of Patterico’s brilliance, blazing like a thousand suns. Of brilliance.

Yes, Patteruku, I concur. Because I, too, am caught by Patterico’s brilliance, as by the gravitational force of perhaps 10,000 suns. But I disagree with your main pint: I mainly pity any fool who defies him.

Good one, Pat. Like some other commenters, I’ve marked it in my book to stay out of trouble when in your territory.

Geez, this Glenn character really is a douchebag! Somehow, I bet most of his support was really him patting himself on the back. I wonder how many of the reviews of his book on Amazon can be tracked back to a certain IP address in Brazil?

And don’t you just love (to coin a phrase) how none of these alleged defenders of GiGi (Ellis, Ellensburg, the Magic Boyfriend, et al.) have shown up to defend their boy? Makes me wonder — maybe he can be embarrassed after all! Or maybe he’s just trying to figure out how to post without making it obvious that he’s the one manipulating the puppets.

Hey, I got my name in the sock puppet story! I did not realize when I got that snarky comment from Greenwald that I actually should have felt honored to have been graced by the original Greenwald, rather than a sock puppet version.

To recap: I love how Glenn Greenwald — who is a New York Times bestselling author — is so super-important that he has five or six obsessive attack poodles scouring the internet to defend his honor whenever a rightwing blogger so much as inadvertantly types the letter “G.”

Do you know me? Even though I am a NY Times best selling author, and a Constitutional scholar who practiced law for …, well, in New York, people often confuse me with someone else. Okay, actually, most people have never…

Nine days ago I made a modest effort to address one of Glenn Greenwald’s many polemical effusions. But Greenwald has been up to a lot more than Left-wing propagandizing. Patterico has the full story, here. That’s all I’ll say. Go…

I condemn anything that needs condemning unless it’s already been condemned, in which case I condemn the condemning of that which is/was condemned. Unless it’s the second Tuesday after the first Monday, in which case all non-condemning is equally condemned.

I think that about covers it.

————–

I notice still no response from Glenn’s sock puppet minions. Quel surprise!

The term “psycho” is bandied about so much it has almost lost meaning, but this kind of behaviour, while maybe considered a ‘venial sin’ by some, seems to smack of sociopathic behaviour, extreme paranoia and obsession. Look, the guy has a blog, he can respond to people all day thru that, he doesn’t even need to go comment, either as himself or as someone else. The fact he does speaks loads about his mental state.

The other reason this is a big deal is because Matt Stoller, Kos, Atrios et all tout Greenwald as a big new star on the left, articulate, brilliant, insightful, etc. etc. This pretty much calls into question all that.

And lastly, having a best seller on the NYT bestseller list is hardly a mark of genius. Take a gander of some of the people who have had them. Ditto for causing a story to be written in the NYT or having your tripe read in congress- I’d take it as a mark of shame if anything.

[…] But in honor of Patterico’s definitive history of Greenwald’s sock puppets and the hard work of Ace of Spades and others in bringing it to light, I will unfold the tale, garnered from the pages of David McCullough’s John Adams. […]

Oh and by the way, some time ago I was closely following the debate on the legality of NSA surveillance on the Volokh Conspiracy. There was this user named “minnie” who kept shilling for Glenn Greenwald’s blog in post after post, going as far as to beg Orin Kerr for a link in the blogroll. See the comments here. He did this a few more times in other related threads, and I recall this only because of how annoyed I was by that user’s persistent Greenwald spamming (at that time I had no idea who this Greenwald chump was). I remember thinking how very strange and over-the-top his praise of Greenwald is. And how odd that he would grovel for Greenwald’s inclusion on Volokh’s blogroll.

Now that Greenwald’s sockpuppetry has come to light, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Greenwald himself shilling on VC. And there was me wondering why “minnie” was so obsequious towards Orin Kerr when he wrote a series of critically acclaimed posts on NSA surveillance and presidential art ii powers.

As an aside, this seems, to my limited knowledge, to be the first time that an important story which originated totally outside of the MSM has come to such prominence. A big victory for the blogosphere!

haha come on

I forgot to add this excerpt from the Greenwald site, in case anyone is interested in listening to a debate on the NSA eavesdropping issues before the hearings begin.

“I’m going to be on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this Monday morning, February 6, before the NSA hearings begin, from 7:45 to 8:30 a.m. I’ll be debating the NSA eavesdropping issues with Bush supporter Professor Robert Turner of the University of Virginia.”

The reason GG’s boyfriend is relevant is because GG claims that someone in his household wrote the posts. Since the boyfriend is the only candidate in that regard, GG is claiming that his boyfriend is the one committing the fraud.

Great post. I’ve followed this saga since it broke. Ace and Shawn laid out an airtight case for sock-puppetry almost immediately, yet certain bloggers on the right later deemed it “more likely” that the boyfriend posted all the defensive comments from GG’s computer. This is ludicrous. It strikes me that the people that grasp for such improbable defenses of this childish behavior have probably engaged in a bit of sock-puppetry themselves. If you don’t believe me, just read what the next commenter says!

Btw, I think that these four points should not be referred to as ‘Pillars’, but instead…

The Four Crutches of Glenn Greenwald.

As people make up for inadequacies with accomplishments and posessions (sometimes they are one and the same…) they become crutches instead of pillars eventually.

Could you imagine Glenn defending himself without leaning on his crutches? Maybe there is a fifth one too–

5. “Other” people defend Glenn!

And if they don’t, he makes sure it looks like they do. Just like the communist party gets ‘supporters’ at their ‘events’ by forcing a bunch of poor, helpless folks into buses, Glenn uses a load of hapless puppets for this task.

[…] Ever get invited somewhere only to find out your there to make it easier on the inviter? Tracey has. We’ve all been there, she reflects on it. There are so many great things to link to, but I’m getting really tired and can’t do all the nice chit-chatty-lead-in stuff right now, and while I know I am missing many important bloggers, I hope they’ll forgive it. Meanwhile, just trust me when I say that if you go to any of these following links, you will be reading something good, thoughtful and important! Gerald on Baby Boomers, Alexandra’s Voice from the Grave, Victor Davis Hanson’s Vocabulary of Untruth, Blue Crab’s Acts of Barbarism and his defense of Condi against unconscionable condescension, Siggy’s Future Written Yesterday, Shrinkwrapped’s futher thoughts on strategy and on narcissism. Patterico has everything you ever wanted to know about sockpuppetry. […]

great job, but you missed one comic riff. since greenwald is apparently openly gay, you could have had a pic of the “groucho” puppet having sexual intercourse with the non-groucho, non-mustachioed puppet.

As others, I’d not heard of this putz until his adventures in sock puppet grabassing went awry. “Douchebag” is too easy. This ass is nothing more than a sanctimonious, petulant drama queen. “Misha wants to hang Supreme Court justices by the neck until they are dead!” Oh my! Good riddence.

That must have been one crowded hacienda down in Brazil. “Sock puppets to the left of me, sock puppets to the right, stuck in the middle with … me.”

How long did it take you to make this post? A real testament to obsession, man, and it really points up the fact that Greenwald’s adversaries are absolutely incapable of addressing any of the host of substantive charges he makes against them.

Over the past five years, I’ve seen a blog spat or two get a little out of control, but two situations that have occurred over the past few weeks have gone way too far, and are starting to make the blogosphere look like, in one instance, nothing more …

How long did it take you to make this post? A real testament to obsession, man, and it really points up the fact that Greenwald’s adversaries are absolutely incapable of addressing any of the host of substantive charges he makes against them.

I just want to add my congratulations for a job well done. While it’s easy to argue that sock puppetry does not merit this amount of work and attention, I think it was worth it. Too many lies and distortions get spread by the MSM and the left side of the blogosphere. It would be impossible to rebut them all, but it’s gratifying when someone takes the time to examine all the evidence on a particular point and draw the logical conclusion.

While sock puppetry is a “venial” sin, it is indicative (to me at least) of a serious character flaw. And in the blogosphere, if you can’t be trusted as a straight shooter, then you’ve lost a lot of credibility. We shouldn’t fall into the ad hominem trap of discrediting ideas because of who is making the argument, but you can’t completely divorce the two. Political arguments are full of factual background and assumptions, sometimes stated and sometimes not. I’m happy to read any analyst, left or right, who I can trust not to hide or distort the facts or arguments that run counter to his own views. Mr. Greenwald is obviously not such a person.

Our esteemed host and a couple of others have been baffled by my questioning the statement that Mr Greenwald lives in Brazil for much of the year, with his boyfriend. I certainly don’t question specifying the need to note that he resides for much of the year in Brazil; that is necessary information when it comes to noting the origin of IP addresses.

Our host even linked to an article of Mr Greenwald’s noting his residence — but that article mentions nothing of his reasons or with whom he resides or anything else.

Nor could I see any reasonable purpose in noting that Mr Greenwald is homosexual. Such would not seem to be the basis of his arguments, nor would sock-puppetry be something we could expect only from homosexuals. I’m certain that our host, in the course of his legal duties, would note any attempt to introduce such potentially inflammatory but non-germane to the case information.

Perhaps if our host could explain to me what purpose he did have in noting Mr Greenwald’s sexual orientation, I’d understand his reasons.

I decided to give the guy a chance this morning (7/28) so I went to his site and got halfway through his first sentence where he made reference to a David Frum NRO piece that calls for more troops in Baghdad. Greenwald had characterized the piece as an admission of failure of the war on Iraq coming from a Bush supporter. If you read the piece you can see that it is not, it merely calls for more troops in order to attain a decisive victory.

I said as much in his comment section. A regular leftie came on a few posts later and conceded as much, saying “Much as I hate to agree with any of the contrarians here, I have to agree Frum’s article Wednesday didn’t concede the invasion of Iraq was a failure or a mistake.”

Greenwald himself came back with three new points that he thought supported his claim. I thought, hmmm, maybe I screwed up, so I reread the Frum piece, and once again it was a total mischaracterization. So I posted as much, once again.

And so it goes. What I find strange is, put yourself in his position. You have been unmasked as a Sock Puppetmaster. Do you stretch away, or do you clean up your act a bit?

You, Madame, are a goof, and is typical among liberals when they have no other ground to stand upon, you cry “homophobia.”

Had Ace followed the embedded link to my site, he’d have hardly found a liberal one. If he delved further, in the Freedom of Religion category, he’d have found a few articles noting the moral and theological chaos of the Episcopal Church over the issue of homosexuality — and I hardly come down on the side of the libs!

But, on occasion it will occur that, when you try to assume someone’s entire political philosophy based on one small piece of evidence, you’re going to guess incorrectly.

No, I’m not concerned that Ace misguessed my sex; I grew up in the South with a girl’s name, and learned to put up with the hassles.

The reason GG’s boyfriend is relevant is because GG claims that someone in his household wrote the posts. Since the boyfriend is the only candidate in that regard, GG is claiming that his boyfriend is the one committing the fraud.

I’d accept that as a reason for noting that Mr Greenwald’s boyfriend might have made or was blamed for making or whatever the various comments thought to be sock-puppetry. I wouldn’t expect some “significant other” crap from our host to hide the sex of Mr Greenwald’s bed partner.

But it still strikes me that the original noting that he lives in Brazil with his boyfriend, especially in that hyperlinks on this site automatically boldface, seemed more to me a way of diminishing Mr Greenwald’s arguments by a reference to his sexuality.

Who knows, maybe I’m wrong about that, and our host has denied it, but that was certainly my first impression.

But it still strikes me that the original noting that he lives in Brazil with his boyfriend, especially in that hyperlinks on this site automatically boldface, seemed more to me a way of diminishing Mr Greenwald’s arguments by a reference to his sexuality.

He established a fact and backed it up with a link. What else would he do? If the facts of the case diminish Mr. Greenwald in your eyes….

We’ve never seen Big Lizards as a primary news source, or a newspaper, or anything of that ilk. We’re not journalists, and we don’t engage in reporting. Rather, we like to analyze news and current events, trends and motives, often……

Glenn Greenwald sock-puppetry alleged, perhaps exposed. While Don Surber is correct that dwelling too much on the charges of puppet-mastery glosses over the fact that his arguments are often demonstrably borne on the backs of straw men (as I learned re…

Nor could I see any reasonable purpose in noting that Mr Greenwald is homosexual. Such would not seem to be the basis of his arguments, nor would sock-puppetry be something we could expect only from homosexuals.

Dana, if you had read the comments in this thread, you would have known that this point has already been addressed.

Dana, if someone doesn’t think being gay is a big deal, then it’s rather inconsequential when they mention the fact that Greenwald spends time in Brazil with his boyfriend. It’s only when it’s supposed to be a source of shame that mentioning it is a little slimy. So in order for your complaint to have any merit, you’d need to show that Patterico has a problem with gays in the first place, or that he expected that his audience would (a la John Kerry).

In this whole thread, there’s only been one or two weird remarks about Greenwald’s homosexuality, which everyone else has ignored.

As has been mentioned, Greenwald’s boyfriend is relevant because Greenwald himself has (in a quite cowardly manner) insinuated that others in his household were the sockpuppets. And it hasn’t been specifically mentioned in this thread, but the boyfriend is the reason Greenwald’s in Brazil at all, since the bf is a Brazilian national.

On a slightly different tack, I’ve been following this matter from the start, and have yet to see Brazilian bf identified by name or image. Let’s keep it that way. Spouses, etc shouldn’t be dragged into this blog nonsense. (If only Greenwald thought as much.)

Aother true thrilling tale of horror snatched from today’s blogs. Meet Mr. Glenn Greenwald, by all appearances an upstanding and respected left-wing blogger… until he becomes “The Puppeteer,” who from his secret Brazilian lai…

[…] If you’ve been watching any of the several inside baseball games going on in the blogosphere, here’s a grand slam (Patterico and cast of thousands vs. Greenwald) which will make no sense whatsoever unless you’ve been rubbernecking this particular trainwreck for a while. Must have been a fast train that hit, because there are cars everywhere… […]

And none, I say NOT ONE of them has a NY Times bestselling book, and the best blog ever read from on the Senate floor during it’s meteoric 9 motnh rise in which it broke ALL of the new stories found on the front page of every newspaper in America!

“But it still strikes me that the original noting that he lives in Brazil with his boyfriend, especially in that hyperlinks on this site automatically boldface, seemed more to me a way of diminishing Mr Greenwald’s arguments by a reference to his sexuality.

“Who knows, maybe I’m wrong about that, and our host has denied it, but that was certainly my first impression.”

You are 100% wrong about that.

I already explained why I noted that fact: it is the central pillar of Greenwald’s insinuated defense.

For someone to claim this is somehow homophobia on my part is total balderdash.

At least one of Greenwald’s critics has posted some stuff that I consider slightly homophobic (speaking about riding on a “sac of Brazilian nuts” or something like that). I disassociate myself from any such statements or jokes.

That’s an astonishing amount of prose (and Photoshopping) to convict someone of a venial sin.

I would think that the amazing facility with English all the sockpuppets demonstrate (from the same IP addresses in BRAZIL) along with the similarities in tone, would be enough to convince just about anyone. (Except, perhaps, Dan Rather)

[…] If you don’t, you will make a gigantic ass out of yourself. Not the Al-Gore-Democrat kind of an ass, but the I am a stupid-@#$@$! kind of an ass that gets lampooned on Wuzzadem and exposed on Patterico. […]

[…] I won’t name the blogger, but he once linked a post (the very first link in this post) that called one of his opponents a “suburban douchebag” — among many, many other things. His writings are famously misleading. And he has some fierce defenders at his IP address. […]

[…] But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of a prominent Constitutional Scholar who shares an IP address with his biggest fans, including Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Ryan, and Wilson. In a comment on Volokh.com, our Scholar says: Although I agree with all of the conclusions the court reached, the opinion is horrible in how it analyzes those issues and defends its conclusions in several important respects. […]

[…] But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of a prominent Constitutional Scholar who shares an IP address with his biggest fans, including Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Ryan, and Wilson. In a comment on Volokh.com, our Scholar says: Although I agree with all of the conclusions the court reached, the opinion is horrible in how it analyzes those issues and defends its conclusions in several important respects. […]

[…] As Blog P.I. has noted before, it’s been a banner year for sock puppets already — Michael “Mikekoshi” Hitzlik, Glenn “Ellison” Greenwald, even Jason “George Gooding” Leopold. As in the case of Greenwald, hubris played a big factor in the un-socking. For both writers, the temptation to praise oneself in a manner even one’s biggest fans are unlikely to do was insurmountable; this hubris drives the similar impulse to pour self-generated adulation into one’s own Wikipedia entry. Had Siegel (or his rumored accomplice) just toned it down, Sprezzatura might still be antagonizing Siegel’s antagonists. And whereas the semi-retired Greenwald is unfireable, Siegel like Hitzlik before him is (or was) eminently vulnerable. […]

[…] If you’re keeping score, this makes two disingenuous egomaniac blue-blog hearthrobs to be read into the record in the upper chamber. Patterico can tell you all about the other guy, who, like Olby himself, is anything but shy when it comes to touting his Senate cameo. […]

[…] Much like the gratuitous slap at Scalia over the tequila remark, this is an attempt to complain for the sake of complaining. Of course he is not the only one. The always reliable critic at any turn, the Master of Puppets himself, weighs in with this: One notable aspect of the Bush administration’s treason accusation is that the only basis for it seems to be Gadahn’s appearance in the Al Qaeda videos, not any actual involvement in any terrorist plots. As the Post reported, “McNulty said the government had no information indicating that Gadahn was directly involved in planning or carrying out terrorist attacks.” […]

[…] Radley Balko takes on Greg Sargent’s attempt to turn John Tierney into a right wing partisan shill for a relatively mild example. The King of bad faith however, is Rick Ellensberg, uh, Glenn Greenwald or as he is readily conceded to be, the King of Sock Puppets. I have discussed Greenwald and Ann Coulter’s particular brand of bad faith before, and if you want a thorough dissection of their rhetorical tricks you should certainly start there, but some things deserve regular attention. So we should begin with a few links to some of the petty, but nevertheless telling ways the man works, whether it is misrepresenting a sequence of events and calling someone a stalker or intimating that someone you don’t respect is a pedophile. The high minded, morally above the herd, King of Sock Puppets can do these things and still beat the drum of his moral superiority because, well, I guess it is because he hates Bush. That seems enough for some people. […]

[…] I’m going to see if I can get her to open up comments. I know Rick Ellensburg, Thomas Ellers, Ellison, and the rest of the Greenwald fans are itching to get in there and remind her that (a) he’s written a bestselling book, (b) he rose to Internet prominence in a nine months, (c) Senators read his blog, and (d) newspapers have written front-page stories based on his posts. […]

[…] Ann Althouse wonders how people can bear to read Rick Ellensburg. She adds: I get the impression that he is insinuating that I support right-wing efforts at gay-bashing. If so — and I’m not going to put up with reading his crap to find out — that is utterly despicable and false. […]

[…] To borrow a favorite phrase from my favorite shameless, discredited sock puppeteer, Rick Ellison McEllensburg: this is who they are, and this is what they do. Just like I predicted in that comment of mine that you featured here earlier today. […]

[…] he know if comments had been deleted or not? Greenwald’s psychic abilities (as well as his curious ability to morph into different personalities in order to comment on other sites) must be truly impressive […]

Well, this is something. Via Glenn, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the left-leaning Brookings Institute express support for the surge strategy, saying it’s working and should be extended into ……

[…] – which I’m not endorsing, just airing- is that Sullivan, Greenwald(s) and his troupe of assorted sock-puppets and sycophants thus form a chorus of useful idiots that grease the ideological skids for the […]

[…] Originally Posted by Notorious P.A.T. From Glenn Greenwald: Glenn Greenwald – Political Blogs and Opinions – Salon Does anyone here want to ally with the Kagans in this matter? The troops are definitely fatigued and deserve to return home soon, with this I certainly agree. IMHO, the best way to do this is to provide them and the Iraqis with our full support instead of undermining their every effort. Gotta feel great to hear the Senate Majority Leader tell you that the surge failed before it even began! If they leave now, they’ll simply be back in another year or two to fight in more challenging and deadlier conditions. As for Greenwald…the guy is a childish phony. Check out this summary of his juvenile attempts at manufacturing credibility. […]

[…] to expose a possible sockpuppet in the US military. Yes, Glengarry Glen Rick Ellensburg Glenn Ross Boy From Brazil Greenwald is trying his hand at IP tracking. (My god, this is a threat to none other than Nick […]

[…] If Greenwald wants to talk about politicizing the military than how does he explain all the leftist politicization of the military? I would love to see him explain the Amnesty International plants (see here & here), the leftist plants, the "phony soldiers", lying soldiers, the misinterpreting recruiting numbers to claim a draft is needed, the playing politics with body armor, or the creation of false perceptions of the military like claiming recruiters target minorities so they can die on the frontlines which isn’t true. Or how about using IVAW group as part of an astroturfing campaign for larger media outlets? How about publishing an article from a soldier with an obvious agenda in the New York Times. I can go on and on about the leftist politicization of the military yet Greenwald wants to claim that the military is part of the "Republican right-wing noise machine" because the head PAO officer in Iraq sent him an email that further destroyed what little creditability Greenwald had after his sock puppet scandal. […]

[…] in fatigues (for good reason); no, the guy hovering over him is not offering assistance. Not since l’affaire Ellensburg has such petty yet overwhelming jackassery been caught so redhanded. Steel yourself for a taste of […]

[…] who are 0/2 before the HRC, “sockpuppet” in the blogging world, was most famously used to deride Glenn Greenwald’s habit of using fake names under which to post comments defending and praising Glen […]

I guess it shows how clannish I am that, despite my having read numerous left-leaning political blogs daily for several years, with only occasional forays into these waters, I was utterly unaware of this controversy! Glenn Greenwald is my absolute favorite blogger by far. I adore the clarity and passion of his prose; find his arguments almost always carefully supported with verifiable evidence welded onto a rigorously logical framework; sympathize entirely with his politics; admire his efforts to expose hypocrisy, venality, and idiocy in the government and the press; applaud his efforts to incite public outrage at the Cheney administration’s truly monarchical expansion of the powers and prerogatives of the executive branch (which surely must have the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves); and generally regard him as a powerful force for good in the world. Nevertheless, I totally enjoyed this clever and irrefutable outing of Greenwald’s silly sockpuppetry! His ego really is his achilles heel. I’ve always noticed how childishly defensive he can become when attacked. But I never before realized his defensiveness could extend to such absurd lengths! This post is really a masterpiece! Greenwald, unfortunately, had it coming. But I still think he’s one of the sharpest political and moral writers out there!

[…] great one, it is important that you avoid a few pitfalls. No references to that unfortunate “sockpuppet” affair. Greenwald has an ego so big, the extensive self-adulation of his “about” and the real […]

[…] great one, it is important that you avoid a few pitfalls. No references to that unfortunate “sockpuppet” affair. Greenwald has an ego so big, the extensive self-adulation of his “about” and the real estate […]

[…] job it is to fake agreement and excitement at websites via posting under multiple usernames; see Greenwald, Glenn) and ‘astroturfing’ (creating a false impression of grassroots support for an issue via […]

[…] job it is to fake agreement and excitement at websites via posting under multiple usernames; see Greenwald, Glenn) and ‘astroturfing’ (creating a false impression of grassroots support for an issue via […]